CCN

24 September 2026 | 20:05

CAPE TOWN — The African National Congress has criticised suspended National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola over his handling of a directive issued by Police Minister Senzo Mchunu that placed a moratorium on appointments within the South African Police Service’s Crime Intelligence division.

The ANC made the submission during the parliamentary ad hoc committee’s deliberations on its draft report on Wednesday night.

The party wants its position incorporated into the committee’s report, which is examining allegations of criminality, corruption and political interference within the police service. 

At the centre of the dispute is an instruction issued by Mchunu in December 2024.

According to evidence previously placed before Parliament, the directive included a moratorium on filling vacant positions within Crime Intelligence and an instruction concerning the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team.

The ANC now argues that Masemola, as the SAPS accounting officer and national commissioner, should have challenged the minister rather than implement the instruction.

ANC: Masemola should have resisted

ANC MP Khusela Sangoni argued that Masemola should have known that the authority to make the relevant operational decisions rested with him.

She said the committee needed to send a message that senior public officials should be able to resist political pressure when they believe an instruction is unlawful.

“He ought to have known and he should know and I’m quite certain that he is aware that that power resides with him.”

Sangoni added that failing to use the available legal and administrative protections would send the wrong message to accounting officers.

“I think it would be very remiss of us not to send a very strong message that is meant to empower accounting officers to resist this political pressure.” 

The ANC’s submission effectively places part of the responsibility for the implementation of Mchunu’s directive on Masemola.

However, the ANC’s position is a submission to the committee and not yet a final finding of Parliament.

The committee is still considering its draft report.

What did Mchunu’s directive involve?

The dispute dates back to December 2024.

Mchunu instructed Masemola to halt the filling of vacant positions in Crime Intelligence.

The instruction was also linked to the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team, a specialised unit that had investigated politically motivated killings, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal.

The legality and consequences of those decisions have subsequently become central to Parliament’s investigation.

The committee is examining whether political authority crossed the line into operational interference in the work of SAPS.

Parliament has previously heard testimony describing the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team as controversial and poorly communicated. 

Masemola’s explanation: challenging Mchunu could have cost him his career

But there is another side to the dispute.

During the committee’s proceedings, Masemola reportedly explained that resisting a directive from the political head of the police portfolio could have serious consequences for his position.

Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane referred to Masemola’s position during Wednesday’s deliberations.

According to Lekganyane, Masemola had indicated that resisting Mchunu’s directive could have been career-limiting. 

That argument has become an important part of the debate.

The question before the committee is not simply whether Masemola agreed with Mchunu.

It is whether, as the senior administrative head of SAPS, he should have refused to implement a directive that he believed was unlawful — even if doing so could potentially have placed his own position at risk.

Political parties differ over Masemola’s position

The debate has not been confined to the ANC.

DA MP Ian Cameron previously raised concerns about the political environment within which senior police officials operate.

The argument is that police commissioners and other senior officials may find themselves caught between their constitutional and administrative responsibilities and instructions coming from political office-bearers.

During the committee’s deliberations, Masemola’s own evidence about the potential consequences of resisting political authority became part of the discussion.

The issue therefore goes beyond one individual.

It raises a broader question about where political oversight of the police ends and operational independence begins.

The Political Killings Task Team is also part of the dispute

The Crime Intelligence appointments issue cannot be separated entirely from the controversy surrounding the Political Killings Task Team.

Mchunu’s December 2024 directive also instructed that the task team be disbanded.

That decision subsequently became one of the issues raised by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.

The parliamentary inquiry is examining whether the decision was lawful and whether political considerations influenced policing operations.

A parliamentary briefing previously recorded testimony from Deputy National Commissioner Lieutenant-General Tebello Mosikili, who described the disbandment as “haphazard” and said she was surprised by the decision. 

Why Crime Intelligence matters

Crime Intelligence is responsible for gathering, evaluating and using intelligence to support policing operations.

Its work can include intelligence relating to organised crime, gangs, politically motivated violence and other serious criminal activity.

The appointment of personnel within the unit therefore has implications beyond ordinary administration.

A prolonged vacancy freeze could affect the division’s ability to fill positions and maintain its operational capacity.

This is one of the reasons the committee is examining the issue as part of its broader investigation into the functioning of SAPS.

The timing is significant

The latest parliamentary development comes shortly after criminal charges against Masemola were withdrawn.

Masemola had been charged in connection with allegations relating to a controversial SAPS health-services contract involving businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.

The National Prosecuting Authority subsequently withdrew the charges after an internal review found that there were no reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution.

Masemola has since publicly discussed concerns about the way investigations and prosecutions are structured within the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption.

He argued that investigative and prosecutorial functions should be separated. 

The withdrawal of those charges, however, does not automatically resolve the separate parliamentary questions surrounding his handling of Mchunu’s directive.

Those are different processes dealing with different issues.

Committee still has to finalise its report

The ANC’s criticism does not yet constitute a final parliamentary finding against Masemola.

The ad hoc committee is still working through its draft report.

Other political parties have made their own submissions and interpretations of the evidence.

The committee will have to consider the competing arguments before finalising its conclusions.

According to current reporting, the committee has until 30 October 2026 to complete its final report. 

That means the coming weeks could be important for determining how Parliament ultimately characterises the conduct of senior police officials and political office-bearers involved in the controversy.

The bigger question: who controls the police?

At the heart of the dispute is a constitutional question.

The police are subject to political oversight, but senior police management also has operational responsibilities.

The current parliamentary investigation is examining where that line should be drawn.

The ANC’s position is that Masemola should have resisted an instruction he regarded as unlawful.

Masemola’s reported explanation highlights the potential consequences of challenging political authority.

The committee must now decide how those competing considerations should be reflected in its final report.

What happens next?

The ad hoc committee will continue its deliberations before submitting its final report.

The committee’s final conclusions could determine whether it makes recommendations concerning:

• the conduct of senior SAPS leadership;
• ministerial directives to police management;
• Crime Intelligence appointments;
• the Political Killings Task Team;
• political interference in policing; and
• safeguards for senior officials who receive potentially unlawful instructions.

For now, the ANC’s criticism remains a party submission before the committee, rather than a final finding.

Crime Connect will continue following the parliamentary inquiry and will update this story when the committee adopts its final report.

KEY FACTS

Issue: Crime Intelligence appointments moratorium
Minister involved: Senzo Mchunu
National Commissioner: Fannie Masemola
Parliamentary body: Ad hoc committee investigating allegations concerning SAPS
ANC position: Masemola should have challenged the directive
Masemola’s reported position: Resisting the directive could have been career-limiting
Status: Committee still deliberating
Final report: Expected by 30 October 2026

This article distinguishes between allegations, political submissions and established findings. The ANC’s criticism of Masemola has not yet been adopted as a final finding by Parliament.